I spend time on Twitter every day keeping track of the latest happenings and news. Once in a while, there is a tweet that makes me chuckle. When it provides a good lesson on social media use, I have to share.
Take a look at this post by Charles Arthur, Tech Editor of The Guardian. I had noticed some comments directed to a few people I know/follow on twitter (Richard @ Dell and Pistachio) and responded with my own $0.02. To the credit of most people, engagement with Amanda was very respectful. I chuckled at the tweets from that day, including Charles’ suggestion that Amanda go “have a wank.”
There four points that are worthy of mention:
First one is: ignore the trolls. And in social media, it’s helpful to tell others who the trolls are.
Second: for the benefit of Google and not-yet-informed readers, Amanda Chapel does not exist. “She” is a construct.
Third: I still don’t get the mindset of wilful trollers. To keep it up for years on end suggests to me a personality that I’d really not like to know: a bit lacking empathy, a la Blade Runner.
Fourth: social media makes it really hard to know anyone you haven’t met in the real world.
Now let’s rewind for a second and look at each of these points:
1. Ignore the trolls. Here, it’s important to define what is a troll.
From Wikipedia: “An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”
I’ve been involved in car-enthusiast forums (and before that, listserv’s) for years. We all know who wants to push the topic from intercooler performance to why another make owns all. However, challenging the status quo is hardly troll activity. Why is twitter here? What true business use are we presented? According to the definition and application by Charles, Patrick Henry would have been a troll as well.
2. Does Amanda Chapel exist? Who knows. I have a silly cartoon character on my profile, yet I exist. Enough existential examination.
3. Mindset: See point #1.
4. This has always been a problem with the Web. I have met a good number of people online, but distance & time will make a face-to-face unlikely. So should I stop tweeting, blogging and participating?
Dissent is a difficult thing to fathom for some people. My primary interest in the Web is not making friends or getting to know people, it’s pushing the envelope of value generation. This could be shareholder value, or for a socially-based business, a more intangible resource like environmental awareness. There is the possibility that people don’t care about this and that is certainly within their right. However, if the CFO can’t find a compelling reason to fund a program, that belief could change.
And who do I support in these arguments? The customer.
Charles Arthur is a wank. And this post as with his is certainly testament to the old saw that it would one day render him blind.
Silly.
Regards,
- Amanda
Thanks for the comment, Amanda. As I’ve read your stream of comments, I have to say I’m redefining my definition of who is the troll in this post. The level of BS on twitter is high: let’s all discuss relationships and hugs while forgetting the fact that business is driven by results.
I believe the medium offers both users and brands tremendous value, but people need to be mindful of comments. If you represent a company, or list it in your profile, you speak for everyone, including the executive leadership.
Found this from the links on my blog. So..
You say: “Dissent is a difficult thing to fathom for some people.” Dissent – when someone argues their case, in a reasonable fashion that allows for the facts that (1) they may be wrong (2) you could be wrong but sincere about it – I find easy to fathom. It’s outright antagonism for the sake of it, which is what constitutes trolling, that I don’t get. But some people have a lot of time on their hands, I guess.
You say: “I’m redefining my definition of who is the troll in this post.” You seriously think that in not wanting to have a stream of obscenities and insults thrown at me, *I’m* the troll? You’ll have to explain that one in a bit more depth.
For me, since I’m a journalist, getting results from social media means getting leads, encountering sources, getting new points of view. From that POV, Twitter succeeds for me. I’m not there to market cereal. Others may have different views. That’s OK. They’re not obliged to use Twitter; if you think it’s ineffective for marketing, please, don’t waste your time there. But equally, don’t tell me it’s useless, because that’s not my experience.
You say: “If you represent a company, or list it in your profile, you speak for everyone, including the executive leadership.” I think that’s stretching it. If I leave my employers, do I have the same Twitter (or other social media) account? Yes. So is that account congruent with my employment? Clearly not. So while one would not look to disseminate company secrets, I don’t think you can argue that what someone says if they don’t in their profile *represent* themselves as *representing* that company is, well, representing the company. I say what my job title is. That’s all.
Finally: can one insult a non-existent person? If my comment were aimed at Spongebob Squarepants, or FakeSarahPalin, is it an insult?
Charles,
Thank you for your comment. I wanted to use this exchange as a means to discuss discourse on Twitter.
Comments from “Amanda Chapel” are on the edge of what’s acceptable discourse. The view, however, questions the value of certain activities on Twitter. Her scathing viewpoints were also directed at other people follow — and know personally — on Twitter. They acknowledged and did not choose to attack. You’re an accomplished professional. Why engage the other person at that level?
Twitter itself is a fantastic resource — so much that I spend my time indexing brands and conducting research as to the best use of the tool.
As for acting as the representative of a company: no, unless specifically defined, the account is yours and does not belong to a company. Let me share a quick story: I once posted a comment in a community about my experience with a certain vendor. It was fairly innocuous and did not single out one individual. After the particular vendor heard about my comment, it turned into a mess. (They don’t quit eunderstand social media, which is amusing as it’s a Web agency).
In looking to expand the way businesses can “join the conversation,” providing guidelines that the more tech-hesitant exec’s can follow is of great value. Now, it could be that I’m jaded by my law firm background, and if so, I’m envious of a position where my executives are less likely to care if I tell someone to go wank off (even if it’s called for!). Most companies have people that are authorized to speak to the press; as a journalist, would you jump on comments made by someone with a direct company connection? Is this to much?
Spongebob Squarepants: Nope;-)
You say: “Comments from “Amanda Chapel” are on the edge of what’s acceptable discourse.” Well, at that point it had tipped over. (See the end one at http://search.twitter.com/search?q=&ands=&phrase=&ors=¬s=&tag=&lang=all&from=amandachapel&to=charlesarthur&ref=&near=&within=15&units=mi&since=&until=&rpp=50 which started from someone I follow saying they were going to unfollow @amandachapel. I suggested they should because I found @amandachapel “dire” and had unfollowed earlier. At which it kicked off. I’m being called an asshole? (With f-word emails as well.) And ignorant? And asinine? You call that discourse? On a New York street if you bump into someone, maybe.
The second part of my suggestion was “it’ll keep your hands off the keyboard, and you might end up happier”. Note that it’s not insulting the person. If you’re American and strait-laced, you might find it unbelievably rude, I guess. That’s a cultural thing: I’m British, and that’s British humour. Like most humour, it’s not literal. (Well, you said you laughed.)
Timing matters too: this was a Sunday night, far outside my working hours.
You say: “Most companies have people that are authorized to speak to the press; as a journalist, would you jump on comments made by someone with a direct company connection? Is this to much?” I’d be amused by their approach, to be honest. Trolls are trolls. You might as well get some amusement from them, since they’re getting theirs off you.